Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Arnaud:

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Arnaud Fournet 
<fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>wrote:

>
>
> Karl:
>
> Science, of which linguistics is part, is not a mere cataloguing a list of
> isolated observations, rather it includes recognizing patterns within those
> observations. In linguistics, those patterns include recognizing nouns,
> verbs, declensions, etc. Syntax and grammar are complex patterns, but
> observable.
> ***
> If it were true, how do you explain that the most powerful computers are
> still (laughably) unable to translate one language to another?
>

The problem is not with the computer, which, without programmers, is a mere
lifeless hunk of doped silicon, copper, gold, steel and what have you, but
with programmers can be made to do many tasks. Language translation is one
of the most complex operations known to humans, and no program to date comes
even close to that complexity.


> That hypothesis that "grammar" and "patterns" exist is IMHO an artefact of
> the (uncritical) worship of Greek "Logic".
>

I think a lot of us would disagree with this, especially a person like
myself who thinks Greek logic is flawed. But this is getting off the subject
of B-Hebrew, so I won’t go further on this subject on list.


> My personal opinion is that grammar does not exist, only semantics does.
> People generate grammar out of semantics and not the other way round.
>
[…]

> A.
> ***
>
> My problem is not with speculation per se, because speculation can often
> help us recognize patterns, but it becomes a problem when it is elevated to
> be equal with observation or even superior thereto, when it could very well
> be wrong.
> ***
> The idea that observation per se "exists" is a fallacy.
> Ultimately you need words to *convert* those observations into something
> *assertable* and *thinkable*.
> And that operation of conversion is anything but neutral: it entails a
> selection, a dismissal and a categorization of a limited set of features
> interpreted from the whole situation.
>

This is getting into semantics, and I think it is best discussed off list.


> Cf. A theory is what tells you what is a fact and what is not a fact.
>

Years ago I heard a theory, “Fossils are in rocks because God put them there
to decorate the rocks.” Therefore, according to what you said, this is a
fact? It is a theory. Or are there other factors you take into account?


> This explains that people who "saw" the same do not explain the same thing
> and do not remember the same thing.
>

That’s why science deals with only repeatable observations.


> A.
> ***
>
> Best
>
> Arnaud Fournet
>
> Karl W. Randolph.

>